Police procedure???

[HighPriority]

On 10/29/2022 at 2:41 PM, mhortig said:

Thanks, perhaps this is legit, even though it is unfair. I suspect this was deemed to be a 50/50 situation, but nobody was forthcoming to my wife. In my view it was clearly the fault of the motorcycle. She was driving in the dirt next to road, it was not even a real shoulder, She  hit us when we turned into a restaurant, we did signal,  but she was in a blind spot and going very fast.

You’ve turned across her !

[richard_smith237]

9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It's  apodictic officials of any stripe worldwide cannot possibly know and remember ALL the laws they are required to administer. That would require omniscience, and a perfect memory.

 

I once met a guy who claimed to remember everything. I asked him how he would know.

 

Agreed, but I’d also suggest that the knowledge of the law in Thailand by the Police here is less than the level we’d expect from Police in Europe, the US or Aus etc.

 

I’ve no issue with that other than to point out that the Police here do not always know the laws they are enforcing and its perfectly ok to question them and disagree with them (politely of course).

 

Policemen will enforce a specific traffic law at a specific junction based on what their peers were enforcing previously, or follow or enforce specifics road laws based on what their colleagues and peers enforce - its not uncommon that this ‘hand-me-down’ information is incorrect.... 

 

 

 

 

 

[HighPriority]

On 10/29/2022 at 4:42 PM, richard_smith237 said:

Poor driving from the motorcyclist actually....  

 

The Ops wife was in the left lane turning left. 

 

One ‘could’ present the argument that because the Op’s Wife doesn’t have 100% 360 degree visibility that she is at fault because she didn’t see the motorcyclist speeding up the inside (left side), however, the road laws exist to prevent these very issues with the understanding that visibility is never 100% or 360 degree. 

 

So often I’m left cringing as I witness motorcyclists who’ve failed to recognise an indicating slowing car, truck or lorry and the motorcycle still tries to squeeze up the inside...  Many have such low levels of observation and self preservation. 

 

 

This is one of the primary reasons I have both a forward and a rear facing dash-cam. 

 

 

 

 

No.

You are the ONLY one claiming the mc was “speeding up the inside”

For all we know the OP simply turned left after overtaking the mc, thus cutting them off.

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

On 10/29/2022 at 12:11 PM, mhortig said:

Thanks, perhaps this is legit, even though it is unfair. I suspect this was deemed to be a 50/50 situation, but nobody was forthcoming to my wife. In my view it was clearly the fault of the motorcycle. She was driving in the dirt next to road, it was not even a real shoulder, She  hit us when we turned into a restaurant, we did signal,  but she was in a blind spot and going very fast.

You’ve turned across her !

The motorcyclist was not driving on the road. 

The motorcyclist was ‘attempting’ to under-take (over take on the left side). 

 

In both cases the Motorcyclist was in the wrong. 

 

Contrary to popular belief the shoulder is not a Motorcycle lane...

 

Technically the ‘hard shoulder’ is considered a side-walk - it can’t be parked in or riden / driven in.

It can be used in an emergency ‘with your hazard lights on’ (or by emergency vehicles). 

It can be parked in, only IF your vehicle has broken down. 

 

 

 

 

[proton]

On 10/29/2022 at 12:51 PM, carlyai said:

Yes first class insurance just call the insurance company and their rep. handles it.

 

We had that, the rep agreed with the cops, who without talking to the motor bike rider, decided we had cut him up while he was over taking us. He was riding on completely the wrong side of the road, and as we found out later drunk and said he never saw our car. We got stuffed for the 'inspection' of the car damage by cops mechanic, 2k baht. Process went on for weeks, in the end no fine even though we were 'guilty'.

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

No.

You are the ONLY one claiming the mc was “speeding up the inside”

For all we know the OP simply turned left after overtaking the mc, thus cutting them off.

In that case, IF the Op overtook the motorcyclist before suddenly turning left cutting off the motorcyclist then I would agree that the car was in the wrong. 

 

But... thats not what The Fugitive describes....  he suggest that the car turned left from lane 1 and couldn’t see the motorcyclists because there was also a truck behind the car... 

 

This suggest the motorcyclist continued up the inside of both the truck and the car (not speeding - fair enough) but continuing at ‘normal riding speed’ on the shoulder.... 

 

Motorcycles should not be on the shoulder - the shoulder is not a motorcycle lane, this is a common misconception in Thailand. 

 

There is a reason riding on the shoulder is illegal in most countries (Thailand included) and it is because of accidents such as this.

 

It is against the law for vehicles to under-take to the left...  

 

[HighPriority]

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

In that case, IF the Op overtook the motorcyclist before suddenly turning left cutting off the motorcyclist then I would agree that the car was in the wrong. 

 

But... thats not what The Fugitive describes....  he suggest that the car turned left from lane 1 and couldn’t see the motorcyclists because there was also a truck behind the car... 

 

This suggest the motorcyclist continued up the inside of both the truck and the car (not speeding - fair enough) but continuing at ‘normal riding speed’ on the shoulder.... 

 

Motorcycles should not be on the shoulder - the shoulder is not a motorcycle lane, this is a common misconception in Thailand. 

 

There is a reason riding on the shoulder is illegal in most countries (Thailand included) and it is because of accidents such as this.

 

It is against the law for vehicles to under-take to the left...  

 

The fugitive isn’t the OP ????????‍♂️
So stop manufacturing an argument to prove yourself right.

All we know from the OP is that he turned left and hit a mc.

On that information he is far from solid ground, he was changing lanes putting the onus on himself to ensure there was a clear space to move into, it would seem he failed…

If however the mc was overtaking/accelerating past on the left he may have a diminished responsibility. 
 

[richard_smith237]

On 10/29/2022 at 12:11 PM, mhortig said:

 

Thanks, perhaps this is legit, even though it is unfair. I suspect this was deemed to be a 50/50 situation, but nobody was forthcoming to my wife. In my view it was clearly the fault of the motorcycle. She was driving in the dirt next to road, it was not even a real shoulder, She  hit us when we turned into a restaurant, we did signal,  but she was in a blind spot and going very fast

 

 

4 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

The fugitive isn’t the OP ????????‍♂️
So stop manufacturing an argument to prove yourself right.

All we know from the OP is that he turned left and hit a mc.

On that information he is far from solid ground, he was changing lanes putting the onus on himself to ensure there was a clear space to move into, it would seem he failed…

If however the mc was overtaking/accelerating past on the left he may have a diminished responsibility. 
 

The incidents are very similar - nothing manufactured at all. 

 

the Op has never commented that he turned & hit a motorcycle - that is your fabrication. 

 

The op stated that his wife turned left & was hit by a motorcycle riding up the shoulder. The op also started in his view motorcyclist at fault.

 

 

It is perhaps you who needs learn how to read & assimilate information !!! 

[HighPriority]

Good grief man, the OP’s vehicle!!

But you carry on talking about some other accident that happened, or not…

[richard_smith237]

10 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

Good grief man, the OP’s vehicle!!

But you carry on talking about some other accident that happened, or not…

You are aware mhortig is the Op right?  (I even quoted him in the above response for you !)
His wife had the accident. 
The Fugitive had a very similar accident. 

We’re allowed to discuss rules, laws & regulations impacting them both… 

 

The causes of both appear to be the same. A motorcyclist riding up the shoulder (not legal) & a vehicle turning left (perfectly legal).

 

 

Why are you struggling so much with this ? 

Edited October 30, 2022 by richard_smith237

[HighPriority]

Must be your fervent imagination making up “your facts” that I’m struggling with…

But you keep going, I recon you’ve almost convinced yourself that you’re correct.

You are awesome… ????????

[richard_smith237]

9 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

Must be your fervent imagination making up “your facts” that I’m struggling with…

But you keep going, I recon you’ve almost convinced yourself that you’re correct.

You are awesome… ????????

You’ve stated the op turned across her (I assume you mean the Ops wife turned across the motorcyclists). 
 

So you think it is the Ops wife at fault? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HighPriority]

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You’ve stated the op turned across her (I assume you mean the Ops wife turned across the motorcyclists). 
 

So you think it is the Ops wife at fault? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Changing lanes and colliding with another vehicle during the maneuver, pretty fair chance that the OP's wife was the major contributor to the accident, yes.

But we only have his version and im not even perfectly clear that he was in the car at the time... So who really knows...?

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, HighPriority said:

Changing lanes and colliding with another vehicle during the maneuver, pretty fair chance that the OP's wife was the major contributor to the accident, yes.

But we only have his version and im not even perfectly clear that he was in the car at the time... So who really knows...?

Where did the op state his wife switched lanes & collided ? You accused me earlier of manufacturing an argument but you are fabricating stories ( changed lanes / collided ).

 

Ops wife was driving in lane 1 ( left most lane ) indicated left, slowed, turned left and was hit by a motorcyclist.

There is no mention she was driving in lane 2 changed to lane 1 colliding with the motorcycle.

 

The motorcyclist apparently rode up the shoulder ( not a driving or riding lane ) at speed, hitting the car turning left. 

The Ops wife has not been blamed for the accident by the police. 
 

I’m not sure why some see the Ops wife is at fault unless they do not understand the road laws and assume the shoulder is a legal riding lane. 
 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by richard_smith237

[HighPriority]

she turned off the road into a side soi or some-such, she moved her vehicle out of the lane it was traveling in...!

 

and besides all that, his question was about paying police a "fee" to adjudicate !!

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, HighPriority said:

she turned off the road into a side soi or some-such, she moved her vehicle out of the lane it was traveling in...!

There is nothing illegal in that manoeuvre at all. Particularly when turning from the left most lane. 

 

According to the Thai laws I have read - the shoulder is not a lane in which motorcyclists can ride unless it is legally designated and marked as a motorcycle lane in which case there is a ‘dashed line’ to the right of this ‘motorcycle lane’ and the car in effect is then driving in lane 2 (see next post). 

 

The motorcyclist may as well have been riding down the field next to the road and ridden into the side of the Ops Wife as (or after) she turned.

 

I would argue that when riding down the shoulder the motorcyclist (as they are not on a legal road) has to stop for any vehicle turning left from lane one.

 

1 hour ago, HighPriority said:

and besides all that, his question was about paying police a "fee" to adjudicate !!

Agreed...   there are a few interesting aspects of this discussion for me.

 

The first: The Police charing to ‘adjudicate’... i.e. the Police charging to do their job. I’ve been in that station and paid the 500 baht - it just seems extremely strange and somewhat questionable. I’d like to learn what the ‘official’ reason for this is (and yes, as another poster mentioned, if a receipt is given (I can’t remember). 

 

The Second: The proportioning of blame according to a) the Law and b) what people think the law is and c) regardless of the law us being aware of social norms of people breaking the law anyway is the onus of the driver to also be aware of people breaking the law when riding ?

 

The Third: The act of riding a motorcycle on the shoulder (as discussed, the safety aspect) but also the legal aspect. So many people now do this, do the police accept this as being legal when making their judgement of fault if a motorcycle riding down the shoulder hits us while we are turning left. 

 

The fourth: The discussion of motorcycle safety and how motorcyclists often take chances when undertaking vehicles. This is something I find myself having to be extremely cautious of - when turning left, attempting to block as best as possible anything from riding up the inside... as much as I try I still often have to hit the brakes as a motorcyclist still tries to squeeze up the impossible gap as I’m about to turn left.  

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

This would be a legally designated motorcycle lane. 

It's not the shoulder. 

 

While I agree that we should be aware and take care of our surroundings particularly while making a traffic manoeuvre (such as turning left) - we are not responsible for someone else riding illegally and hitting our car. 

In this case we would not be (legally) responsible for someone coming down the shoulder and hutting us as we turned, any more than we would be responsible for someone driving out of a field and hitting us as we turned. 

 

The Motorcycle lane seems to add a legal complexity: As we’d effectively be riding in lane 2 and thus cutting across a lane to execute the left turn. 

Thus: in this scenario (as others have written) I’d move left to ‘block’ the motorcyclists in their legal lane from attempting to undertake up the inside. 

 

Also note: That undertaking (on the left is illegal) thus, any motorcycle in the motorcycle lane should not pass any vehicles in lane 1..  the way they ’should’ do this is to ride into lane 1, then lane 2 and overtake the slowing vehicle to the right. 

I know it seems pedantic - but the various facets of this discussion interest me. 

 

Perhaps the reason road safety is so poor here is because the understanding between all road users seems to vary so much. 

 

 

 

[HighPriority]

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

There is nothing illegal in that manoeuvre at all. Particularly when turning from the left most lane. 

For the last forking time... I never said that was an illegal manoeuver, I said if you perform it and collide with someone else you are most likely at blame. If you are exiting your lane of traffic the onus is on you to ensure there is a clear, vacant space to move to

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

According to the Thai laws I have read - the shoulder is not a lane in which motorcyclists can ride unless it is legally designated and marked as a motorcycle lane in which case there is a ‘dashed line’ to the right of this ‘motorcycle lane’ and the car in effect is then driving in lane 2 (see next post). 

So we can just drive along and cut off or side swipe anyone we deem is not in a "proper traffic lane"... OK.

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The motorcyclist may as well have been riding down the field next to the road and ridden into the side of the Ops Wife as (or after) she turned.

If you can turn and a mc hits the side of your car youve cut across the mc.

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I would argue that when riding down the shoulder the motorcyclist (as they are not on a legal road) has to stop for any vehicle turning left from lane one.

Thats your concoction...

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Agreed...   there are a few interesting aspects of this discussion for me.

 

The first: The Police charing to ‘adjudicate’... i.e. the Police charging to do their job. I’ve been in that station and paid the 500 baht - it just seems extremely strange and somewhat questionable. I’d like to learn what the ‘official’ reason for this is (and yes, as another poster mentioned, if a receipt is given (I can’t remember). 

Dubious at best... But when the police assign guilt and determine and collect fines...

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The Second: The proportioning of blame according to a) the Law and b) what people think the law is and c) regardless of the law us being aware of social norms of people breaking the law anyway is the onus of the driver to also be aware of people breaking the law when riding ?

 

The Third: The act of riding a motorcycle on the shoulder (as discussed, the safety aspect) but also the legal aspect. So many people now do this, do the police accept this as being legal when making their judgement of fault if a motorcycle riding down the shoulder hits us while we are turning left.

Again, if anyone can collide with you when you're tuning, you're doing it wrong. Your ONLY defence would be if you were at a complete stop and the mc was witnessed by others as being unattentive/on their phone etc.

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

 

 

The fourth: The discussion of motorcycle safety and how motorcyclists often take chances when undertaking vehicles. This is something I find myself having to be extremely cautious of - when turning left, attempting to block as best as possible anything from riding up the inside... as much as I try I still often have to hit the brakes as a motorcyclist still tries to squeeze up the impossible gap as I’m about to turn left.  

No doubt a sound defensive technique, Cyclists in the west similarly "take the lane" when approaching small suburban roundabouts to avoid dumbarses trying to squeeze through where space doesn't exist.

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

 

 

 

[seedy]

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Perhaps the reason road safety is so poor here is because the understanding between all road users seems to vary so much.

Not just here - World Wide.

I been riding bikes a long time. The only understanding you need to keep alive is -

Be Aware

Beware

Assume all other road users are out to kill you and you would not be far off.

This also applies to driving cars and trucks - small and large.

Keep the brake covered, head on a swivel - which includes mirrors. You may need the Xtra meters you gain on a bike by doing so.

 

[EVENKEEL]

A few months back I had a close call with a MB undertaking with me having blinkers for a left turn. I caught sight before I completely turned and she braked and swerved. No accident but had we hit I'm assuming it would be my fault because the MB was going straight and I was turning.

[richard_smith237]

7 hours ago, HighPriority said:

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

There is nothing illegal in that manoeuvre at all. Particularly when turning from the left most lane. 

For the last forking time... I never said that was an illegal manoeuver, I said if you perform it and collide with someone else you are most likely at blame.

The onus is also on the other vehicle to be riding in a legal lane and not to undertake. 

 

The video I posted in this thread a few pages ago highlights how is nearly impossible to indicate, slow and turn and avoid a motorcyclist IF that motorcyclist is paying no attention whatsoever and wants to go straight on.

 

Also, the car did not collide with the motorcycle, the motorcycle collided with the car - there is an important difference. 

.... Why ? because the motorcyclist was riding (according to the op) at speed up the inside (not in a legal lane) and failed to stop.

 

7 hours ago, HighPriority said:

If you are exiting your lane of traffic the onus is on you to ensure there is a clear, vacant space to move to

I do understand that you are trying to point out that it was the driver who ‘made the manoeuvre’ to exit their lane and should take all precautions to ensure the ‘area into which they were moving to is clear’.... and it was clear.... until a motorcycle came up the inside ‘at speed’ (to quote the op).

 

I’d like to use an example:  What would happen IF the Ops wife had broken down and stopped in the shoulder, then shortly later the motorcyclist rode into the car ???

Would  Ops wife in this scenario be blamed ? - the motorcyclist shouldn’t be riding down the shoulder, right ?... 

OR... what if the Ops Wife made the turn left, but was forced to stop (due to an obstruction in the road etc), and the motorcycle came along a minute later and collided with the side of the car ?....  

- the motorcyclist shouldn’t be riding down the shoulder !... 

 

The point I want to make is that the motorcyclist should be riding on the road and not undertaking any traffic to avoid any legal blame. 

In this case had the motorcyclist been following the law, she’d be following the lorry (behind the Ops car) and if she wanted to pass she should have done so to the right. 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, HighPriority said:

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

According to the Thai laws I have read - the shoulder is not a lane in which motorcyclists can ride unless it is legally designated and marked as a motorcycle lane in which case there is a ‘dashed line’ to the right of this ‘motorcycle lane’ and the car in effect is then driving in lane 2 (see next post). 

So we can just drive along and cut off or side swipe anyone we deem is not in a "proper traffic lane"... OK.

Of course not...    

You seem to think the Ops wife ’side-swiped the motorcyclist’ - If she did, I’d agree that the Ops wife is at fault.

But, the Op describes how his wife made the turn and the motorcyclist appear at speed up the inside and collided with the car.

 

Even if the car was not turning... the motorcyclist should never have been undertaking the car - under-taking (over taking of the left is not legal).

 

 

7 hours ago, HighPriority said:

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The motorcyclist may as well have been riding down the field next to the road and ridden into the side of the Ops Wife as (or after) she turned.

If you can turn and a mc hits the side of your car youve cut across the mc.

The video I’ve posted a couple of pages earlier shows how this is not true. 

Nothing should be riding up the inside of a car in the left lane. 

 

Your arguement remains flawed: here’s why: 

IF I’m in the right most lane and I turn right at a junction and a motorcycle attempts to overtake me (going straight ahead) and hits the side of my car....   Would you suggest it's still the car drivers fault ?

 

In this case its illegal to overtake at a junction (or if the lines are fixed white)....

Its the same on the inside, it’s illegal to ‘under-take’ all the time... 

 

7 hours ago, HighPriority said:

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I would argue that when riding down the shoulder the motorcyclist (as they are not on a legal road) has to stop for any vehicle turning left from lane one.

Thats your concoction...

True... is a concoction.... As per the law the motorcycle should not be on the shoulder at all.

So... If they are there, they should at least be giving way to the vehicles that are there legally. 

 

7 hours ago, HighPriority said:

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Agreed...   there are a few interesting aspects of this discussion for me.

 

The first: The Police charing to ‘adjudicate’... i.e. the Police charging to do their job. I’ve been in that station and paid the 500 baht - it just seems extremely strange and somewhat questionable. I’d like to learn what the ‘official’ reason for this is (and yes, as another poster mentioned, if a receipt is given (I can’t remember). 

Expand  

Dubious at best... But when the police assign guilt and determine and collect fines...

 

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The Second: The proportioning of blame according to a) the Law and b) what people think the law is and c) regardless of the law us being aware of social norms of people breaking the law anyway is the onus of the driver to also be aware of people breaking the law when riding ?

 

The Third: The act of riding a motorcycle on the shoulder (as discussed, the safety aspect) but also the legal aspect. So many people now do this, do the police accept this as being legal when making their judgement of fault if a motorcycle riding down the shoulder hits us while we are turning left.

Expand  

Again, if anyone can collide with you when you're tuning, you're doing it wrong. Your ONLY defence would be if you were at a complete stop and the mc was witnessed by others as being unattentive/on their phone etc.

Your implication here is that any other vehicle could be breaking any number of road laws, but if I am making the legal turn, I am at fault. 

( I used the ‘overtaking at a junction example earlier) and there are plenty more where the person committing to the ’manoeuvre’ would not be in the wrong. 

 

The video (next post) also clearly shows... someone turning left, the incident is clearly the motorcyclist fault (and the car was indicating - look at the flashing on the light under the A pillar). 

 

 

7 hours ago, HighPriority said:

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The fourth: The discussion of motorcycle safety and how motorcyclists often take chances when undertaking vehicles. This is something I find myself having to be extremely cautious of - when turning left, attempting to block as best as possible anything from riding up the inside... as much as I try I still often have to hit the brakes as a motorcyclist still tries to squeeze up the impossible gap as I’m about to turn left.  

Expand  

No doubt a sound defensive technique, Cyclists in the west similarly "take the lane" when approaching small suburban roundabouts to avoid dumbarses trying to squeeze through where space doesn't exist.

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

Posted again HighPriority so you don’t have to scroll back through the thread. 

 

An example of turning left where the car really cannot be held at fault for the motorcyclists trying to squeeze up the inside.

 

Even though the car is committed to the manoeuvre (to turn out of his lane) the driver can’t be blamed for the motorcyclist hitting the car. 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

8 hours ago, HighPriority said:

If you are exiting your lane of traffic the onus is on you to ensure there is a clear, vacant space to move to

8 hours ago, HighPriority said:

If you can turn and a mc hits the side of your car youve cut across the mc.

 

8 hours ago, HighPriority said:

Again, if anyone can collide with you when you're tuning, you're doing it wrong. Your ONLY defence would be if you were at a complete stop and the mc was witnessed by others as being unattentive/on their phone etc.

I'd like to discuss this specific aspect as this gets down to the crux or our misunderstanding.

 

Legally, the hard-shoulder is considered the same as the sidewalk (pavement), the difference is only physical in that it is un-rendered as a pavement. 

 

Would a driver be at fault if they turned left and a motorcyclist was riding down the pavement and hit the turning car ????

 

This is perhaps the best way to explain what the Op has described happened (the only difference is the motorcyclist was riding down the shoulder (un-rendered pavement) and could do so at speed because of the lack of obstacles).

 

 

[Onerak]

On 10/29/2022 at 12:00 AM, richard_smith237 said:

Only IF the Op was considered at fault - in this case it seems the Motorcyclist was considered at fault and the Op is wondering why it cost him 500 baht to have his vehicle inspected. 

Who decides who is at fault? Not the forum members whose voice is not heard anywhere in the World except in this forum

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, Onerak said:

Who decides who is at fault? Not the forum members whose voice is not heard anywhere in the World except in this forum

Agreed... but with the information learned from this website if involved in an incident we can ‘put forward a confident footing’ and influence the outcome which may otherwise negatively impact us. 

 

I have done just that, a couple of decades ago and before I knew of this forum, but I knew how to behave with the BiB and that Thai road laws were based around the British Highway Code with plenty of similarities and overlap....  

 

These days we have the Road Traffic Act at our finger tips - If something happens and we think the decision is unfairly going against us, and if we are so inclined not to bend over fearing the local BiB we can easily discuss with them and counter decisions which are wrong. 

 

-----

 

Example Incident:

I was turning right and was hit by an overtaking car...  Police at first suggested it was my fault (easiest way out of this was to just blame the foreigner, I was in a more expensive car and looked like I had more money etc). 

 

As this was so early on on my life in Thailand (I was about 26), I didn’t speak much Thai, I’d asked an ex GF to come to the station and translate.

 

I disagreed..  politely arguing the legality of ‘overtaking another vehicle at a junction’... (with my ex translating of course).

The driver of the other vehicle suggested lied about a few things and was easily caught out (I’d taken lots of photos)

The other driver said I didn’t indicate, called me a liar, I simply asked the police if they believe him, he’d already been proven to lie, they believe me that I did indicate (which was irrelevant anyway because he still couldn’t over take at a junction).

 

Lots of debate ensued, police were polite, I was polite, but I disagreed with some of what was initially being discussed and when the law was cross checked I was correct. 

- Cars could not overtake at a junction.

- Cars could not overtake on that road anyway, even before the junction as the ‘central line was a fixed white line'

 

The other driver was feigning injury and mentioning compensation, so I upped the ante. 

I asked the the police to check.... the other driver had no licence and no insurance...   

 

So... with ’overtaking at a junction.. no licence, no insurance’ the police really didn’t have an option but to agree the accident wasn’t my fault. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[scorecard]

On 10/29/2022 at 11:32 AM, EVENKEEL said:

Corruption is part of Thailand's charm, is it not?

And 'they' seem to be quite innovative as to what the charge is / what the fee is for.

And not shy to tell you the 'name' of the fee even when it's obviously not logical.

 

Friend had office in Bkk and and in Rayong and did the trip by car (with driver) every day. Company had 10 more mostly Thai/some farang consultants who did the trip every day with driver. At least several accidents every week. Friends car was hit (rear ended) as vehicles were travelling about 79 km per hr on open motorway, very few other vehicles on the road. A lot of damage to both cars. Cops come, clever cop asks to see insurance papers for friends company car and calls someone. Cop then announces he will charge friends driver with causing the accident because the phone call identified that this vehicle's insurance  hadn't  had any previous claims.

 

The twist, 2 years later it was discovered that the vehicle insurance on the whole fleet of cars and trucks owned by the company was fake. 

Edited October 31, 2022 by scorecard

[richard_smith237]

6 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

A few months back I had a close call with a MB undertaking with me having blinkers for a left turn. I caught sight before I completely turned and she braked and swerved. No accident but had we hit I'm assuming it would be my fault because the MB was going straight and I was turning.

No, it wouldn’t have been your fault because passing on the left (undertaking) is not legal. 

 

Of course, knowing that doesn’t mean I drive around recklessly just turning without checking etc.

 

As I’m approaching the left junction with the indicators on, invariably, because I am slowing there is a stupid motorcyclist attempting to ‘undertake’ me....  I try to avoid this by positioning the car as far left as possible before slowing down and committing to the turn, yet somehow, some idiots on their motorcycle still don’t see the indicator, still don’t see the obvious road position of my car and still try to squeeze up the impossibly small gap on the inside (left). 

 

In the past I’ve also had to slam on the brakes as I’m turning left as I catch the sight of a motorcycling riding down the pavement and cutting across the junction I’m turning into. 

 

I’m under no illusions in any of these above scenarios - if a motorcyclist hits the side of my car while I’m turning left from the left lane, its the motorcyclists fault and I have dash-cam footage (front and rear) to prove that.

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, scorecard said:

On 10/29/2022 at 11:32 AM, EVENKEEL said:

Corruption is part of Thailand's charm, is it not?

And 'they' seem to be quite innovative as to what the charge is / what the fee is for.

IF you allow them to be....  

 

Ultimately, the Police attempt to push blame down the path of least resistance. 

 

In simple accidents the BiB don’t really care who is right or wrong, they care that the situation gets solved as quickly as possible. 

 

This usually means the wealthier of the two parties takes the hit (they usually have insurance anyway) and they can offer a couple of thousand baht because they feel sorry for the poor feckless soul on the motorcycle. 

 

This seems to be the social norm by which decisions are made concerning minor road accidents.

 

When westerners become party to this they often claim ‘the farang is always blamed’ but thats not the case, its just the BiB trying to make the problem go away as quickly as possible.

 

As mentioned above, to do this they may mention some ridiculous or spurious rule, something either lost in translation or just made up on the spot, or even something they believe is right...

 

But... IF you can be bothered and want to argue the case, do so, if you are legally correct there is little the BiB can do but to go with the law.